Google Ads


Site Stats

NY-23: Democrats Pick Bill Owens

by: James L.

Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 9:56 PM EDT


It's done:

Nearly 12 hours after they first convened at the Minnowbrook Conference Center on the shore of this Adirondack gem, the 11 county party chairs comprising the 23rd Congressional District picked Bill Owens, a Plattsburgh attorney, as the Democratic Party's candidate to replace John McHugh in Congress.

At first glance this seems to be a bit of an odd choice -- I'm not sure what Owens, a registered independent, brings to the table here. There has been a bit of buzz about him, with a "national Democratic source" telling the New York Daily News' Elizabeth Benjamin that "everybody is talking about this guy Owens, saying he's the best of what's left" after Aubertine pulled the plug. I have to hope that there's something impressive about him, because he beat out two other finalists with more apparent advantages -- one of whom had serious financial backing (McGrath) and the other a legitimate political resume (Sullivan).

UPDATE: CQ mentions a possible reason why Dems selected Owens, a former Air Force captain, for the job -- they believe he may be willing to bankroll his own race. Perhaps the county party chairs were able to squeeze out an estimate from him.

LATER UPDATE: The Hill has a lil' more:

Owens himself cited his work creating the Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corporation -- known as PARC -- as his key qualification. [...]

Already, Owens strove to emulate [Rep. Scott] Murphy, who ran his campaign largely based on support for President Obama's economic stimulus plan and distanced himself from traditional politics, all while associating himself with a president whose approval ratings were sky-high.

"I'm not a career politician.  I'm a veteran who proudly served my country in the Air Force and I have demonstrated the same commitment to bringing jobs to our community," Owens said in a statement.

RaceTracker Wiki: NY-23
James L. :: NY-23: Democrats Pick Bill Owens
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
NY-23: Democrats Pick Bill Owens | 69 comments
My guess is that they're worried
about Scozzafava having too much crossover appeal. And I read that Owens has been on TV.  
Airforce Captain
Perhaps that helps in the rural district? I agree that the other two candidates seemed more attractive.
There is a military base
isn't there?  
[ Parent ]
That's correct...
Fort Drum is an Army base near Watertown, in NY-23.
[ Parent ]
So he should have a base there
And in Plattsburgh. Where else?
[ Parent ]
Hard to say
I know he's anti-gay marriage and anti-public option. Ultimately I'd need more information on his stances on other issues to answer that question.
[ Parent ]
There used to be an AFB in Plattsburgh
which got pulled in one of the base closings. Owens' work helped make up for the economic hit to the area.
[ Parent ]
Hmm
Could that be a bonus for him?
[ Parent ]
I don't think you can judge this at all "on paper"......
We're talking about a bunch of lightweights here, no one has a distinguishing political resume for a Congressional race.  A former small-town mayor isn't worth much in a sprawling district, and the fundraising the other guy had was mediocre.

This is no different, "on paper," than Scott Murphy, who had never run for anything in his life and was picked to carry our flag against a high-powered longtime GOP state legislative leader.

Candidates and campaigns matter, and the NY-23 poohbahs know that absent Aubertine, they have to pick whoever they think will make the best candidate.  They obviously know things about Owens that impress but that don't show up on a resume.  That was the case with Murphy.

Having the right split gives us a real shot here, as it will take a lot for conservatives to stomach DeDe in a district that is purple, not blue.  This isn't like Nebraska Democrats having to accept Ben Nelson, which they do because they're smart enough to know how strongly conservative their state is.  NY-23 conservatives know a conservative, or at least someone more conservative than DeDe, has a 50-50 shot at holding the seat, especially in a special against a no-name Dem.

All that said, I expect early polling will show us down by double-digits, and it would be more if it wasn't for Doug Hoffman's presence on the Conservative line.  But a good campaign can turn it around, perhaps more quickly than in NY-20 given that DeDe clearly is to Tedisco's left and conservatives could get disenchanted real fast with her.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

well put
was in the midst of comprising a post on the district where my in-laws live, but then I read yours and realized you had already put my words to paper.

Well put.

[ Parent ]
Pardon me, but Dede seems like a RINO.
Which, from my assessment, would be a good thing for their party.

But of course, they'll disagree with me.  Who am I anyway?  I'm just an armchair political strategist.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
What do you mean by "lightweights"?
It sounds like you mean that they are people who haven't proven themselves. Because just because someone isn't proven doesn't mean they won't prove themselves to be heavyweights when they start campaigning - which actually is how I read your post.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Isn't Doug Hoffman the guy in Colorado...?
...oh wait, I'm confusing Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
I'm torn...
Owens does not support a public option available to anyone--even though the other 2 finalists did.
As is well-known, Owens does not support gay marriage, to the right of Scozzafava.

If I lived up there, I'd have to see who the Working Families Party endorse, before I'd vote for Owens.

[ Parent ]
How do you know these are his positions?
Or are you confusing him with Aubertine?
[ Parent ]
No it says here
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
It is a conservative district...
Therefore it kind of makes sense that they'd pick someone who didn't stand with the left on the healthcare issue.  
[ Parent ]
I doubt that
Recent polls showed that even 50% of Republicans favor a public option.

Nate Silver has also clearly demonstrated through very strong correlation that the differences on guaranteed national health insurance in Congress really have mostly to do with how much funding (read: legal bribery) members are getting from the insurance industry, not with the actual popularity of such a plan, which in general terms is supported nationally by over 2/3 of respondents to polls. (See "Special Interest Money Means Longer Odds for Public Option.")

My question is, if this guy is against guaranteed national health insurance and weak on gay rights, why in hell did the Democrats up there pick him to run against a liberal Republican who favors legal gay marriage? Are they trying to run to the right of the Republicans? If so, are they mad?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
There are other issues
At the moment the only point of difference is on marriage.
[ Parent ]
If that in fact is the only difference
it's in the right-wing direction, and liberals should support Scozzafava.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Not like there will be a vote on it
Personally, I'd rather give the GOP another kicking. Besides, he ain't exactly neanderthal on it either. I think it probably best though to wait and see where they both stand before on other things before making any rah decisions. From the few crumbs so far I think he'll be to her left on economics (not withstanding the public option) and Dems could certainly use that vote.
[ Parent ]
rash decisions

[ Parent ]
Not me
I am more ideological than partisan. 100 years ago, I would have been a staunch Republican.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Fits with what I said
We don't know where he stands on a plethora of issues yet. If the differences are minor I'd support him but sure, if Dede is clearly better I might not. I mean I'd guess most of us here would have supported Lowell Weicker over Joe Lieberman all those years ago.  
[ Parent ]
Weicker vs. Lieberman
Thanks for writing what I was thinking. I'm not saying that's analogous, but if it is, ideology (and, in that case, character) trump party labeling.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
And Dems
Should certainly take into consideration that, even if the House became much more even in the D/R breakdown, the chances of the GOP having a 1 congressmember advantage in the House is remote. Statistically speaking. The Senate...well thats a different story altogether.  
[ Parent ]
And besides
I think party label is a much bigger issue in the Senate than the House when it comes to votes (such as filibusters).  
[ Parent ]
Me too.


My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
I'm also tempted to support Scozzafava (or however you spell her name)
on the basis that she might be one of the people who might be able to help pull the Republican Party into the 21st century and actually restore it to a position of useful and thought-provoking opposition party.

Or, alternatively, and probably more likely, on the basis that it will fuck with the minds of wingnuts.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Symbolism
And the influence and campaigning on gay marriage is what matters most in a congressmember's support of gay marriage, as of right now. But obviously in a decade from now gay marriage could be an issue decided on in Congress. Although the Supreme Court could very well take it up, too. But even in a decade itll be a very, very divisive issue in Congress.
[ Parent ]
Younger generation
Is very, very pro-gay rights, including pro-gay marriage. Maybe theyll change their views on taxes, spending, foreign policy, etc. i dont think theyll ever, ever switch on gay rights. Kind of like suburban 20-somethings in the 60s and 70s who were racially tolerant. Many of the ones who were racially tolerant later on became more conservative overall...but still didnt change their views on race.
[ Parent ]
And there are other issues besides marriage rights
In fact, there's no chance that the House of Representatives would ever vote on expanding marriage rights.

But it would be nice to know where he stands on other gay rights issues:  repealing DADT, passing ENDA, repealing DOMA, etc.

[ Parent ]
Can't be too terribly conservative
Obama won it, and Kerry only lost by five.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Good point
It is conservative relative to the rest of the state though.
[ Parent ]
True but it's New York
Saying something is more conservative than the rest of the state leaves A LOT of room to play with.  It's almost like saying something is more liberal than the rest of Utah.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Salt Lake City
I'm not sure that analogy works, because Salt Lake City elects a very liberal Democratic mayor.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Thanks
"On the issue of abortion, he is pro-choice. On marriage equality, he believes that is a civil rights issue but isn't a proponent of marriage equality, at least not as of yet."

http://www.thealbanyproject.co...

There is wiggle room there. I assume Dede doesn't suppport the public option either. She was against the stimulus correct? At least Owens was for that according to The Hill. Need more info.

[ Parent ]
Also here
[ Parent ]
We shall see
"My beliefs and principles are essentially Democratic beliefs and principles..."
[ Parent ]
what's crazy is ...
that Scozzafava has been endorsed by the Working Families Party in the past:

http://www.adirondackdailyente...

(but may not be this time:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blo...

[ Parent ]
DCCC strategy
Seems to be to get straight-ticket Dems and Repubs disaffected with Dede.
[ Parent ]
You know you all want this...
...2008 county results!!!

Clinton
Obama 61-38

Essex
Obama 56-43

Franklin
Obama 61-38

Fulton
McCain 54-45

Hamilton
McCain 63-36

Jefferson
McCain 52-47

Lewis
McCain 54-45

Madison
Obama 49-49

Oneida
McCain 52-46

Oswego
Obama 50-48

St. Lawrence
Obama 58-41

Thanks!
Someone should keep these results handy for when the election rolls around.
[ Parent ]
I hoppe but doubt
the election will be before the gubernatorial races this fall so we can hit the republicans in the mouth before they hit back.
Gubernatorial race is next year
Bloomberg is up this fall.
[ Parent ]
I believe the comment is referring to
Virginia and New Jersey.

Male, 23, DC-At Large
[ Parent ]
Ah
Misread plural race(s).
[ Parent ]
Although the GOP would surely spin it that way
I continue to feel that a defeat of Gov. Corzine this November would be a referendum on his terrible tenure as governor and/or the corruption-plagued NJ Democratic Party -- not on Obama or the national Democratic Party.  
[ Parent ]
If VA goes GOP too, you can forget that...
The Obama honeymoon ends Nov.4 if that happens.
[ Parent ]
It already ended last month
When health care started taking a toll on his polling. Gates didn't help. Losing VA and NJ will look bad but it'll be spin mostly. The state of the economy by this time next year is much more important than what happens this fall.
[ Parent ]
Very true
The predicting power of the NJ/VA races is highly exaggerated. While they may have been somewhat prescient in 1993 and 2005 (and maybe 1989), they were less so in '81, '85, '97, and '01.

BTW, what's the latest on the NY mayor's race?

[ Parent ]
Not too much news
All the polls point to Bloomberg getting re-elected. Similarly, his approval ratings are consistently around 60%. Oh, and Bloomberg is now on Twitter. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes....

Maybe the race will heat up later, but it's probably four more years of Bloomberg for NYC.

[ Parent ]
These elections are less of a measuring stick
than the actual federal legislation Obama is able to pass. If he passes healthcare reform, if he passes a climate bill, if the economy improves -- or if those things don't happen -- those will be real measuring sticks of Obama's popularity, and real measuring sticks of how the 2010 elections turn out. 2009, not so much.
[ Parent ]
This is true
Dems won NJ and VA in 2001, yet got whipped in the midterms in 2002.

[ Parent ]
Unlikely
the most likely date will be Election Day itself, 11/3.
[ Parent ]
NY
Seems like a pretty bad choice out of the three, lets hope they were right and I'm wrong.

29/D/Male/NY-01
Considering your history and theirs (picking NY-20)
I am even more optimistic about picking up NY-23 than before.

You are like a reverse good-luck charm, everything you post here on SSP the opposite happens.

[ Parent ]
Hee hee
Good point. I guess there is a use for Tek/BillNolan/UpstateDem/etc: a reverse lucky charm!
[ Parent ]
Y'know
I may be wrong about this, but as someone who has banned Sean/BillNolan over a dozen times (including a new account that just popped up the other day), I don't think Tek is the same dude -- just a kindred spirit.
[ Parent ]
Over a dozen times?
He obviously can't take a hint.

Still, I do think Tek and UpstateDem are the same person.  

[ Parent ]
It's annoying
that Owens is against the public option. Obama did win the district after all. I do not mind Blue Dogs representing conservative districts, but we are beginning to have quite a few of them that they're even watering down bills in committee, including the Energy and Commerce Committee. This district happens to be a swing district where I do not think we should expect a complete progressive, but at least a New Dem would be nice. I hope Owens does not continue to take positions to the right of Scozzafava, at least. It will be interesting to see their positions on EFCA.
New Dem?
"but at least a New Dem would be nice"

You do realize that New Dems overall are more pro-business than the Blue Dogs that everyone on the left is bashing these days, right?

Blue Dogs are unified on fiscal conservatism on having a balanced budget and other issues like that, yet as a caucus they're less pro-business than the New Democrats.

Obviously the health care issue is different, but if you compare them side by side, New Democrats tend to be socially liberal/pro-business (more supportive of free trade for example) while Blue Dogs tend to be socially conservative/more prone to fair trade and possibly unions.

Yes, there is some overlap between the two groups in terms of membership, but New Democrats are much worse than Blue Dogs any day of the week.

If you're a social liberal that likes free trade and big business you'd probably be more inline with the overall view of the New Democrats. If you're a social conservative and an economic populist you'd likely be more in line with the Blue Dogs.

Remember, I am basing this on more than just the healthcare debate. Blue Dogs are nowhere near as conservative as the Democratic wing of the Conservative Coalition or the Boll Weevils.

[ Parent ]
The public option
is the biggest popular (in the sense of for the people) legislation to come down the pike in decades. The Blue Dogs who are either voting against it in committee or trying to water it down are getting huge contributions from the insurance industry and voting against the very clear interests of their poorer-than-average constituents. Those who, on the other hand, are voting for the public option and trying to simply include provisions that improve rural health care are representing their constituents admirably.

Let's wait and see what the final count is for what I hope is a decent conference committee report before passing judgment on just how many of the Blue Dogs, as opposed to New Democrats, have been bought by legalized bribery from the insurance industry.

Frankly, as much as I opposed NAFTA and still oppose all other conditionless free trade bills - and strongly support a truly international labor movement - guaranteed national health insurance is a much bigger deal and will affect much more people in much deeper ways than any bill on international trade that's been passed probably since the Great Depression.

I realize these kinds of discussions are tangential to this site, but there are reasons why people vote Democratic, and one of them is not to have their Representatives favor insurance companies over the will of over 2/3 (probably closer to 3/4) of the people, and just plain common morality.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
Fair Enough
Yes, it is one of the biggest issues in decades, but I'm not a fan of cherry picking one vote and calling someone a liberal or conservative. There are many issues that come into play, maybe the legislation is bad, problems with the language in the bill, whatever.

As far as the "bought by legalized bribery from the insurance industry" and all that, ok, blah.

There are reasons why people vote Democratic, but we all have different reasons why we vote Democratic, and quite frankly, there are Democrats out there who are waiting to see what the bill ends up looking like.

Language in the legislation is a huge deal, so trying to simplify it to a good guy vs bad guy issue is just as wrong as what you think the Blue Dogs that do not support a public option are doing.

[ Parent ]
You called the New Democrats more pro-business
and I'm saying that so far, the evidence on votes in committee and on the floor of the House on the health care legislation is contrary to your claim. I don't call opponents of the public option "conservative," and I think it's not much of an issue of ideology but more one of funding from the insurance industry - the correlation is very strong and covered well on a statistical basis on FiveThirtyEight.com, for example.

On an issue as important as guaranteed national health insurance, voting against the conference report on the basis of some claimed or even very real minor to moderate problem is bullshit, as far as I'm concerned - and not credible, when the Representatives' poor constituents so obviously need help and their campaigns are being funded by the insurance industry to such a huge extent. When it comes to yes or no on guaranteed national health insurance, the public interest is to vote yes and then try to fix the remaining or unanticipated problems afterwards.

While the bill is being fashioned in both Houses, it does make sense for members to strongly advocate for their points of view on what should be better in the bill. Which is why I'm willing to cut Blue Dogs a bit of slack until they're faced with the ultimate up or down vote, after the conference reconciles the House and Senate bills. But after that, if we see a lot of them voting Nay and making bullshit excuses, I hope you'll temper your claim that they're not very pro-business.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
Rahminization
Score another one for the "Rahminization" of the Democratic Party.

Look, I get that Democrats want to win every seat. But if the party continues to move right, what's the point? Already, Blue Dogs are holding the health care bill hostage.
Owens isn't even registered as a Democrat! He does not support a public option available to anyone and is against full marriage equality. What else? A search of "Open Secrets" revealed just 2 contributions ($750.) by him-to Republican Al D'Amato in 1998 against Senator Shumer. The law firm he is a partner of is headed by a former Republican state senator (Sen. Ronald Stafford-42nd district). So, where are his Democratic credentials?

And don't give me the crap that his position on marriage is like that of Obama's...Obama didn't get my vote in the primaries because of his position on that issue.

What's next? We're the majority part, one back-boned by the Progressives, not "the moderates" (really, though, conservatives) and we have to go to an Independent/Republican for a candidate? Owens could only get the nomination from power brokers, he sure couldn't win it in a primary.

It's becoming more and more obvious that the Democratic Party is becoming ruled more and more by the Right. If you want a Republican, vote Republican. This guy is no Democrat.

Heh
Its interesting that while on the one hand Rahm's ideology is 'pro-very big tent' he is also as cutthroat as can be when it comes to passing legislation. And many of those who dont agree with what he wants to pass are conservative Dems he wants to include in this ultra big tent.
[ Parent ]
Stafford was a Rockefeller Republican
I suspect that he would have joined today's Democratic Party.
[ Parent ]
Disagree
"A search of "Open Secrets" revealed just 2 contributions ($750.) by him-to Republican Al D'Amato in 1998 against Senator Shumer. The law firm he is a partner of is headed by a former Republican state senator (Sen. Ronald Stafford-42nd district). So, where are his Democratic credentials?"

Are you really bringing up the law firm issue? If you expect most firms to be "Democratic firms" or "Republican firms", then I think you need to do some research. It is not uncommon at all for Democrats and Republicans to work in the same firm.

As far as the donation issue, wow, two donations on Open Secrets. What about non-federal contributions?

Off the bat, two Democrats from NY, Kirsten Gillibrand and Carolyn McCarthy should not have run for office because they were in similar situations when they first ran.

Which, even if the guy is truly a former Republican, he's chosen to run as a Democrat. Instead of having the "liberal or nothing" mantra, why not try to help the party grow?

Finally, your definition of a Democrat is likely much different than someone like me who is one of the Conservative Democrats you have so much dislike towards. I could easily say "oh no, haydenmountain is no Democrat, he's too far left, he needs to run and find the Green Party or someone else more in line with his views", but I'm not.

The coalition of liberal and Conservative Democrats brought about a majority that would not be possible with just liberals. What you're advocating is no better than what the GOP did over the past decade, tossing out those who refuse to be purists.

[ Parent ]
NY-23: Democrats Pick Bill Owens | 69 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox